03 - Vercide Vs Hernandez - Digest
03 - Vercide Vs Hernandez - Digest
HERNANDEZ
AM No. MTJ-00-1265, 06 April 2000
FACTS:
Petitioners Valencides Vercide and his wife filed against private respondent Daria
Lagas Galleros for recovery of possession of a piece of land located in Upper
Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental.
Motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners alleging that PD No. 1508
has been repealed by Section 409(c) of R.A. No. 7160, stating that recourse to
barangay conciliation proceedings is not necessary where the parties do not
reside in the same municipality or city or in adjoining barangays.
Said motion was dismissed by respondent judge; hence, this petition charging her
of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge gravely erred in dismissing the complaint
for failure to satisfy the barangay conciliation proceedings, despite the fact the
parties do not reside in the same municipality or city?
RULING:
In this case, respondent at first cited P.D. No. 1508, as basis of her action. When
her attention was called to the fact that this had been repealed by Section 409(c)
of R.A. No. 7160, respondent, who obviously was more intent in justifying her
previous order than correcting her error, quoted out of context the provisions of
the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules implementing the Katarungang
Pambarangay provisions of R.A. No. 7160. She thus violated Canon 3 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct which provides that "In every case, a judge shall endeavor
diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan
interest, public opinion or fear of criticism."
xxx
Her insistence on her own interpretation of the law can only be due either to an
ignorance of this Court's ruling or to an utter disregard thereof. The Court
believed that it was simply due to gross ignorance which, nevertheless, is
inexcusable.